1Timothy2 Challenge

[Timothy2]

The challenge:

Is there someone, anyone who can prove that Paul stopped more than 1 specific woman from teaching 1 specific man in the 1 Timothy 2 passage?

Prove from the 1 Tim 2 passage that Paul stopped women in general from teaching men.

 

[CmRoddy]

The challenge:

Is there someone, anyone who can prove that Paul stopped more than 1 specific woman from teaching 1 specific man in the 1 Timothy 2 passage?

Prove from the 1 Tim 2 passage that Paul stopped women in general from teaching men.

I'll just give one of the commentary notes I have on 1 Tim. 2:12-13 as a start.

1 Tim. 2:12-13 (ESV)
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve;
​

I do not permit. Paul self-consciously writes with the authority of an apostle (e.g., 1 Thess. 4:1; 2 Thess. 3:6), rather than simply offering an opinion. This statement is given in the context of Paul's apostolic instructions to the church for the ordering of church practice when the church is assembled together. In that context, two things are prohibited: (1) Women are not permitted to publicly teach Scripture and/or Christian doctrine to men in church (the context implies these topics), and (2) women are not permitted to exercise authority over men in church. (The reference for both “teaching” and “exercise authority” here is within the context of the assembled church.) Women teaching other women, and women teaching children, are not in view here, and both are encouraged elsewhere (on women teaching women, cf. Titus 2:4; on women teaching children, cf. 2 Tim. 1:5). Nor does this passage have in view the role of women in leadership situations outside the church (e.g., business or government). The presence of the word or (Gk. oude) between “to teach” and “to exercise authority” indicates that two different activities are in view, not a single activity of “authoritative teaching.” “Exercise authority” represents Greek authenteō, found only here in the NT. Over 80 examples of this word exist outside the NT, however, clearly establishing that the meaning is “exercise authority” (not “usurp authority” or “abuse authority,” etc., as sometimes has been argued). Since the role of pastor/elder/overseer is rooted in the task of teaching and exercising authority over the church, this verse would also exclude women from serving in this office (cf. 1 Tim. 3:2). Thus when Paul calls for the women to be quiet, he means “quiet” with respect to the teaching responsibility that is limited in the assembled church. Paul elsewhere indicates that women do speak in other ways in the church assembly (see 1 Cor. 11:5).

For introduces the biblical basis for the prohibition of v. 12. Paul indicates that the prohibition is based on two grounds, the first being the order of creation (Adam was formed first), and the second being the deception of Eve (v. 14). “Formed” (Gk. plassō) is the same term that the Septuagint uses in Gen. 2:7, 8, which evidently refers to creation (cf. 1 Cor. 11:8–9). Paul's argument indicates that gender roles in the church are not simply the result of the fall but are rooted in creation and therefore apply to all cultures at all times. The meaning of this passage, however, is widely contested today. Some interpreters argue that the prohibition of 1 Tim. 2:12 does not apply today because: (1) the reason for Paul's command was that women were teaching false doctrine in Ephesus; or (2) Paul said this because women in that culture were not educated enough to teach; or (3) this was a temporary command for that culture only. But Paul's appeal to the creation of Adam and Eve argues against those explanations. In addition, the only false teachers named in connection with Ephesus are men (1:19–20; 2 Tim. 2:17–18; cf. Acts 20:30), and no historical evidence exists of women teaching false doctrine in first-century Ephesus. Moreover, ancient inscriptions and literature speak of a number of well-educated women in that area of Asia Minor at that time (cf. also Luke 8:1–3; 10:38–41; John 11:21–27; Acts 18:2–3, 11, 18–19, 26; 2 Tim. 4:19). Finally, some have claimed that this passage only prohibits a “wife” from teaching or exercising authority over her “husband,” since the Greek words gynē and anēr (translated “woman” and “man” in 1 Tim. 2:12) can also mean “wife” and “husband” in certain contexts. Given the immediate context of vv. 8–9, however, the most likely meaning of the Greek words gynē and anēr here in vv. 11–14 would seem to be “woman” and “man” (rather than “wife” and “husband”).

Source: ESV Study Bible

I would be more then happy to give lots of more information if needed.

 

[Timothy2]

Hi,

Thanks for your comment.

Hope you don't mind any humor of mine that may show through...

You gave alot of commentary but no proof that Paul stopped women in general from teaching men, no proof that he stopped more than 1 woman from teaching 1 man? Why?
I will say a little bit in response to the commentary you've provided. MOST of it is pointless anyway, if the challenge cannot even be met...

Notice the ESV quote you provided uses the singular "a woman" and "a man" and not the plural "women" and "men". In the Greek the singular is used. Verse 14 also uses the singular but with the definate article, as in "the woman".

Paul had the authority of an apostle, not the authority of God, because he was an apostle and not God, so what he says cannot be equated with universal laws of God. Apostolic law (if it even existed which it doesn't) couldn't be universal anyway since people die. Besides, when Paul does write about God's laws he WRITES so. For example, in other places he writes "the command of the Lord".

Paul wrote the letter to Timothy who was dealing with problems of false teachers and this is the context of the passage under view. See 1 Tim 1.

If someone cannot prove that Paul stopped more than one woman from teaching one man, then what does Adam being created first have to do with anything to begin with?

"For introduces the biblical basis for the prohibition of v. 12. Paul indicates that the prohibition is based on two grounds, the first being the order of creation (Adam was formed first), and the second being the deception of Eve (v. 14)."

Verse 14 should be read for what is says. Paul does NOT say "Eve". In v14. He says/writes "the woman".

We can talk about why Paul speaks of Adam and Eve later... For now, I still just want someone to prove that he prohibited women in general. ALL the commentary you provided means nothing if it cannot even be proven that Paul stopped women, plural.

 

[Timothy2]

Some believe that Paul bases a prohibition of women not to teach men on creation order and who was not deceived (Adam).

Here's the point, if Paul can use creation order and the fact that Adam was not deceived as a basis for prohibiting all women in general from teaching men, then at the very LEAST he can use the same basis for prohibiting 1 specific, deceived woman from teaching 1 man. So since at the very least Paul stopped 1 woman, it needs to be proven that he stopped more than 1.

This is why it doesn't matter at this point, that Paul mentions Adam and Eve. Someone, anyone, any scholar, any bible student, anybody that can, needs to prove he stopped all women from teaching.

 

[CmRoddy]

How about this.

Since I am tired of this subject (and since I know that people who hold the position that women can be elders simply will not be convinced otherwise, no matter how many facts they give), I'm going to just leave you with links so you can go do some research on the subject.

Women in Ministry | Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

Monergism :: Search Results

Monergism :: Search Results

http://www.gty.org/media/audio/womenpastors.mp3

http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/rbmw/church_history.pdf

John MacArthur - Women Elders?

 

[Timothy2]

How about this.

Since I am tired of this subject (and since I know that people who hold the position that women can be elders simply will not be convinced otherwise, no matter how many facts they give), I'm going to just leave you with links so you can go do some research on the subject.

Well I've been studying both sides for years. For me, it ALL comes down to the facts, and proofs since they are the end of all arguments no matter what anyone believes. They will always be there.

But thanks for the links.

And since you are not able to prove that Paul stopped women in general, maybe there will be someone else here who will be up for the challenge.

Thanks for your interaction.

 

[Timothy2]

For those interested, I will be here untel it is clear that 1 Timothy 2 does not prohibit women from teaching men... If a belief of what the scriptures teach cannot be proven, then it is mere belief and not scriptural.

 

[herev]

How about this.

Since I am tired of this subject (and since I know that people who hold the position that women can be elders simply will not be convinced otherwise, no matter how many facts they give), I'm going to just leave you with links so you can go do some research on the subject.

Women in Ministry | Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

Monergism :: Search Results

Monergism :: Search Results

http://www.gty.org/media/audio/womenpastors.mp3

http://www.cbmw.org/images/onlinebooks/rbmw/church_history.pdf

John MacArthur - Women Elders?

p-k-b

 

[Fenstermacher]

It can be argued that the way we approach this issue is conditioned by our attitudes toward gender roles generally and that those predisposed to see a role for women in the teaching office of the church will see it and those opposed will not.

So it becomes a matter of presupposition for many.

I have had to really search my heart over this one. I have met so many godly women so clearly gifted to teach, so clearly more knowledgeable than I, so clearly more patient and lucid.

I freely admit that I cannot give you proof that you will accept. I don't think anyone could do better than CmRoddy has done anyway, for my part however, I have become convinced that God has a distinct order for the church and society and that men and women have been given distinct roles in both and that He is wise to have done so though I may not understand or see why.

 

[bbbbbbb]

As an aside, one of the curious aspects in gender studies has been recent research into various diseases which have strong gender biases. The recent issue of Forbes magazine has an interesting article about research into autism, which afflicts primarily men and not women. On the other side of the divide are diseases such as fibromyalgia (from which I, as a man, suffer) which afflict far more women than men. The bottom line is that there do appear to be distinct differences between the brains of men and women.

For politically correct society this is tantamount to heresy and, for instance, resulted in the firing of the former President of Harvard University. However, for medical research, it is reality that must be accepted if progress is to be made in the treatment of these dreadful diseases and disorders.

 

[razzelflabben]

Personally, I find the topic overly dwelt upon, but, in fairness to all who seek truth and God's authority over all, let me say this focusing only on I Tim.2

In the church that is being discussed, there was an obvious problem. There were obviously woman out of control. Paul corrected the problem and as best as I can figure, was talking to that church, not all the churches.

So in applying this passage. We once attended a church in which two ladies in particular were like those talked about in I Tim. 2. It was important for all woman to keep quiet for a season at least so that the "sins" of those woman could be addressed properly. Because of the role of woman in society, both then and now, correction is very different on such things for woman than for men.

If we add then the totality of scripture to the one I Tim. passage, what we see is a consistency of thought. It isn't that woman are not qualified to teach, but rather that if woman are out of control in the body, the best way to reign them in is silence and sometimes silencing all at least for a season.

Does that answer your question?

Edit: I think, at least for me and my husband, seeing the problems that are referred to in I Tim. played out in the church, kind of gives us a slightly different insight into the general instructions of how to deal with it.

 

[Timothy2]

It can be argued that the way we approach this issue is conditioned by our attitudes toward gender roles generally and that those predisposed to see a role for women in the teaching office of the church will see it and those opposed will not.

So it becomes a matter of presupposition for many.

I have had to really search my heart over this one. I have met so many godly women so clearly gifted to teach, so clearly more knowledgeable than I, so clearly more patient and lucid.

I freely admit that I cannot give you proof that you will accept. I don't think anyone could do better than CmRoddy has done anyway, for my part however, I have become convinced that God has a distinct order for the church and society and that men and women have been given distinct roles in both and that He is wise to have done so though I may not understand or see why.

Hi fenstermacher,

This is what I'm looking for:

When Paul used the singular "a woman" in Greek, in 1 Timothy 2, there are five possibilities for what he meant by the singular usage:

1 Generic for all women
2 Symbolic
3 Singular specific woman
4 Singular specific wife
5 Generic for all wives

From the passage and context prove that Paul used the singular, "a woman" genericaly for all women.

I'm not talking about conditioned attitudes, I'm not talking about perspective, or presuppostion, I'm talking about the actualy facts, evidence and proof from what is actualy written. I accept them, but will others? I don't know CmRoddy or what he has done. I've not read his posts but a few.

Now, how have you become convinced on order and "roles" without the facts?

 

[Timothy2]

Personally, I find the topic overly dwelt upon, but, in fairness to all who seek truth and God's authority over all, let me say this focusing only on I Tim.2

In the church that is being discussed, there was an obvious problem. There were obviously woman out of control. Paul corrected the problem and as best as I can figure, was talking to that church, not all the churches.

So in applying this passage. We once attended a church in which two ladies in particular were like those talked about in I Tim. 2. It was important for all woman to keep quiet for a season at least so that the "sins" of those woman could be addressed properly. Because of the role of woman in society, both then and now, correction is very different on such things for woman than for men.

If we add then the totality of scripture to the one I Tim. passage, what we see is a consistency of thought. It isn't that woman are not qualified to teach, but rather that if woman are out of control in the body, the best way to reign them in is silence and sometimes silencing all at least for a season.

Does that answer your question?

Edit: I think, at least for me and my husband, seeing the problems that are referred to in I Tim. played out in the church, kind of gives us a slightly different insight into the general instructions of how to deal with it.

Hi razzelflabben,

The topic is overly dwelt upon and especialy by those who use it to prohibit women from teaching men and having leadership roles in the church.

If you read 1 Tim 1, the context provided by Paul is that yes, Timothy was dealing with a church that had problems, and specificaly false teachers.

I do no think that all women in a church need to pay a price for the trouble of 1 or more women. If one person is guilty of stealing should all those who look like the theif do prison time too? If a man or two become agressive with another member, should all men of the church be counciled?

 

[razzelflabben]

Hi razzelflabben,

The topic is overly dwelt upon and especialy by those who use it to prohibit women from teaching men and having leadership roles in the church.

If you read 1 Tim 1, the context provided by Paul is that yes, Timothy was dealing with a church that had problems, and specificaly false teachers.

I do no think that all women in a church need to pay a price for the trouble of 1 or more women. If one person is guilty of stealing should all those who look like the theif do prison time too? If a man or two become agressive with another member, should all men of the church be counciled?

if paying the price would restore them all to fellowship with Christ, why shouldn't they all pay the price.

Once God asked me what price I would be willing to pay that another might live (way longer story) if death is not to high a price, why would being silent for a season be?

 

[Timothy2]

if paying the price would restore them all to fellowship with Christ, why shouldn't they all pay the price.

Once God asked me what price I would be willing to pay that another might live (way longer story) if death is not to high a price, why would being silent for a season be?

First, now we are off topic.

Secondaly, offering oneself to pay the price of another is not the same thing as forcing those who are not guilty, to pay the same price as those who are.

 

[razzelflabben]

First, now we are off topic.

not really, if Paul was telling women that they are being asked to "pay" for the sin's of another that all might be restored, we are right on topic.

Secondaly, offering oneself to pay the price of another is not the same thing as forcing those who are not guilty, to pay the same price as those who are.

interesting use of the word forcing there, who is forcing anyone in Tim? Paul is saying, "this is what I believe..." Now consider this, we have a society in which women are second class citizens, the woman are trying and under Christianity finding new freedom, new worth, new place in society. Some of the women get out of line and cause all kinds of havoc in the church. How out of place would it be to ask the women to hold their tongues for a season until it could all be worked out and settled? Personally, I think that is reasonable to ask...but hey, I would gladly trade a season of silence for a lifetime of freedom.

In a society like that, woman were used to men correcting them, they saw men as the authority in their lives. In the very church where I saw woman behaving in the manner discribed in Tim, I know first hand that as a woman trying to correct, the women out of control did not listen, did not change, only became worse. But when the men stood their ground, and corrected the women, the woman began to listen (began, the issue was never fully resolved) So why should I as a woman be offended by a man saying, "let me handle this one, it might go smoother"?

 

[Timothy2]

not really, if Paul was telling women that they are being asked to "pay" for the sin's of another that all might be restored, we are right on topic. interesting use of the word forcing there, who is forcing anyone in Tim? Paul is saying, "this is what I believe..." Now consider this, we have a society in which women are second class citizens, the woman are trying and under Christianity finding new freedom, new worth, new place in society. Some of the women get out of line and cause all kinds of havoc in the church. How out of place would it be to ask the women to hold their tongues for a season until it could all be worked out and settled? Personally, I think that is reasonable to ask...but hey, I would gladly trade a season of silence for a lifetime of freedom.

In a society like that, woman were used to men correcting them, they saw men as the authority in their lives. In the very church where I saw woman behaving in the manner discribed in Tim, I know first hand that as a woman trying to correct, the women out of control did not listen, did not change, only became worse. But when the men stood their ground, and corrected the women, the woman began to listen (began, the issue was never fully resolved) So why should I as a woman be offended by a man saying, "let me handle this one, it might go smoother"?

You said "IF Paul was telling women..." Below is what I'm looking for, so how about this. You prove that Paul was even speaking about women in general then we can discuss what it is you'd like to. If you can do that, then I'll return to responding to all of what you are saying, but at this point, what I opened the thread for, was for anyone to prove that Paul was writing about "women" plural. Sound fair?

When Paul used the singular "a woman" in Greek, in 1 Timothy 2, there are five possibilities for what he meant by the singular usage:

1 Generic for all women
2 Symbolic
3 Singular specific woman
4 Singular specific wife
5 Generic for all wives

From the passage and context prove that Paul used the singular, "a woman" genericaly for women in general.

 

[Timothy2]

razzelflabben,

Also what you're doing is trying to make application of something you don't even know if Paul teaches, hence "if...women..." So I think it's best to first determine what Paul IS teaching in 1 Tim 2 and then try to make application. Is Paul even writing about "women", plural?

 

[razzelflabben]

You said "IF Paul was telling women..." Below is what I'm looking for, so how about this. You prove that Paul was even speaking about women in general then we can discuss what it is you'd like to. If you can do that, then I'll return to responding to all of what you are saying, but at this point, what I opened the thread for, was for anyone to prove that Paul was writing about "women" plural. Sound fair?

When Paul used the singular "a woman" in Greek, in 1 Timothy 2, there are five possibilities for what he meant by the singular usage:

1 Generic for all women
2 Symbolic
3 Singular specific woman
4 Singular specific wife
5 Generic for all wives

From the passage and context prove that Paul used the singular, "a woman" genericaly for women in general.

so if I agree that Paul is referring to a specific situation, I dare not post on this thread....cool, have a nice day.

 

[Timothy2]

so if I agree that Paul is referring to a specific situation, I dare not post on this thread....cool, have a nice day.

I agree that Paul wrote about a specific situation, but 2 questions are what was the situation (was it about women or 1 woman) and how can we apply it today, (to all women or certain kinds of women?) if warranted?